Notes
- Tversky formalizes prototypicality as the member or members of the category with the highest
summed similarity to all members of the category. This measure, although formally more trac-
table than that of cue validity, does not take account, as cue validity does, of an item’s dissimi-
larity to contrast categories. This issue is discussed further later. - This work is being done by Elizabeth Kreusi.
References
Anglin, J. Les premiers termes de re ́fe ́rence de l’enfant. In S. Ehrlich and E. Tulving (Eds.),La mem-
oire se ́mantique. Paris: Bulletin de Psychologie, 1976.
Barker, R., and Wright, H.Midwest and its children. Evanston, Ill.: Row-Peterson, 1955.
Battig, W. F., and Montague, W. E. Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication
and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Mono-
graph, 1969, 80 (3, Pt. 2).
Beach, L. R. Cue probabilism and inference behavior.Psychological Monographs. 1964, 78 (Whole No.
582). (a)
Beach, L. R. Recognition, assimilation, and identification of objects.Psychological Monographs, 1964,
78 (Whole No. 583). (b)
Berlin, B. Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature.Language in Society, 1972, 1 ,
51–86.
Berlin, B. Ethnobiological classification. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and catego-
rization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1978.
Borges,J.L.Other inquisitions 1937–1952. New York: Washington Square Press, 1966.
Bower, G.Comprehending and recalling stories. Paper presented as Division 3 presidential address to
the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., September 1976.
Bransford, J. D., and Johnson, M. K. Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W.
Chase (Ed.),Visual information processing.NewYork:AcademicPress,1973.
Bruner,J.S.,Olver,R.R.,andGreenfield,P.M.Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley, 1966.
Garis, L. The Margaret Mead of Madison Avenue.Ms., March 1975, pp. 47–48.
Garner, W. R.The processing of information and structure. New York: Wiley, 1974.
Garner,W.R.Aspectsofastimulus:Features,dimensions,andconfigurations.InE.RoschandB.B.
Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
1978.
Kay, P. Taxonomy and semantic contrast.Language, 1971, 47 , 866–887.
Kosslyn,S.M.Imageryandinternalrepresentation.InE.RoschandB.B.Lloyd(Eds.),Cognition and
Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1978.
Lakoff, G. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic offuzzy concepts.Papers from the eighth
regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Linguistics De-
partment, 1972.
Miller, G. A. Practical and lexical knowledge. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and cate-
gorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1978.
Nelson, K. Concept, word and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development.Psychological
Review, 1974, 81 , 267–285.
Neuman, P. G. An attribute frequency model for the abstraction of prototypes.Memory and Cogni-
tion, 1974, 2 , 241–248.
Newport, E. L., and Bellugi, U. Linguistic expression of category levels in a visual-gestural
language: A flower is a flower is a flower. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and
categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1978.
Newtson, D. Foundations of attribution: The perception of ongoing behavior. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes,
andR.Kidd(Eds.),New directions in attribution research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1976.
Palmer, S. Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation.Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9 ,441–
474.
Palmer,S.E.Fundamentalaspectsofcognitiverepresentation.InE.RoschandB.B.Lloyd(Eds.),
Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1978.
Principles of Categorization 269